Maybe I'm not, or maybe you didn't.
I'm fairly sure you are and I'm dead certain that I did.
Yes or no questions would take two cans to sort.
Yes or no tends to be misleading in any number of contexts. It works fine for, "Does that dog bite?" though.
Thanks for those answers.
Those weren't my answers. Those were cherry picked parts of my answers.
So two "of Courses" equals an Isn't?
That's on you for cutting them out of the context. The explanation wasn't veiled.
That's your opinion and that's fine, you're entitled to it, and Trump is entitled to his.
That's misleading too. This doesn't reduce to a subjective, "Who could know?"
Anyone suggesting a bias that impacts impartiality has to make the case. Assuming the case doesn't put them on equal footing with people who aren't willing to give it credence short of the case being made.
I think you're going to be hard pressed to find something that impacts Mexicans harder than a Presidential Candidate who's running on a platform of deporting 6 million of them.
And if La Raza was dedicated to Mexican interests you'd really be making a point. But they aren't. In fact, you could reasonably argue their position in relation to that game show's impact infers their interest is with legal populations of Latinos in their area, which makes sense given they're a Bar association.
Absolutely not. The Judge might have been "extra fair" to Trump for fear of being seen as political.
BUT
Maybe not.
Maybe isn't something, it's wondering if there's something. No inherent conflict of interest in a maybe and no reason to recuse.
Show me them supporting the wall and mass deportations Trump style. Without that your false equivalence not only won't fly, it won't even taxi.
Saying a thing is a false equivalence doesn't make it one. I can say you're a wedge of cheese, but it doesn't make you one of those either.
Trump made his case. "He's Mexican (Heritage) and I'm building a Wall."
Heritage wasn't in his quote. It was a later amend when enough people pointed out the error. But let's say he meant to air quote on the designation. So because Curiel's parents are naturalized citizens he can't be fair on a matter that impacts that country? A country you were quick enough to point out wasn't a racial distinction when it suited you. Your guy tacked on a bit more. He said the judge was a member of a pro Mexican group. Wrong group. Politifact weighed in on that one. Here's the
link. Ultimately, when you look through various quotes by him on the point, over time, it's fairly clear that he got rulings he didn't like then decided to blame it on the judge's heritage.
Sure he could have elaborated more, I don't know that quote was supposed to be a perfect definitive encapsulation of the matter and I don't know that Trump could fashion on in a single sentence if that was his aim.
The Politifact article looks at a number of different occasions when he's been asked about it and spoken to the point.
He did issue a statement clarifying his position which cited Muriel's associations.
Curiel. Gonzalo Curiel. I've noted the confusion on La Raza and his error (being charitable) on the point.
The National Review thinks he's seeing things (
link). I suspect he's just being Trump. Trump hates to lose and has an ego that insists an inarguable loss can't be fair, because he knows more, can do more, is more, etc.